HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE
Read 30 LawLens analyses of Madras High Court judgments published in February 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.
← BACK TO MADRAS COURT REPORTPERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS
![A pensioner cannot draw two dearness reliefs, one on salary and another on family pension.. Tmt. P. Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation & Anr. [WP No. 36589 of 2015 (2026:MHC:836)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-pensioner-cannot-draw-two-dearness-reliefs-one-on-salary-and-another-on-family-pension-c18699f5be444512a6e931c867bf598a.webp)
The petitioner was appointed to the respondent Corporation on compassionate grounds on April 20, 1974, following her husband's death in 1972.
1 MIN READ→
![Section 9 application for interim measures is maintainable until the complete satisfaction of the arbitral award.. C.J. Charles Rajkumar v. Mrs. Rahamathunnisa (died) and Others [O.A. No.1188 of 2025 (2026:MHC:835)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/section-9-application-for-interim-measures-is-maintainable-until-the-complete-satisfaction-c591e114c5384cffa0160d84d0765ce3.webp)
The applicant, a contractor, obtained an arbitral award dated 26.05.2022 for ₹10,04,25,376 with 18% interest against the respondents.
3 MIN READ→
![Civil Court Jurisdiction to Grant Injunction in Temple Title Suits Not Barred by HR&CE Act.. K. Lakshmi v. Arulmigu Balasubramaniya Swami Temple Devasthanam & Ors. [C.R.P.(MD)No.3632 of 2025 and batch]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/civil-court-jurisdiction-to-grant-injunction-in-temple-title-suits-not-barred-by-hr-ce-act-f6be9a152521409d90dfbe9b944ece20.webp)
The petitioners claim title to various land parcels in Karur District via registered sale deeds, asserting these were originally private patta lands granted under Section 8(1) of the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963
3 MIN READ→
![### Cryptic ex parte judgment failing Order XX requirements is a nullity and inexecutable under Section 47 CPC.. R. Balasankar v. Ramalakshmi and Others [C.R.P.(MD)Nos.3025 and 3419 of 2025; 2026:MHC:834]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cryptic-ex-parte-judgment-failing-order-xx-requirements-is-a-nullity-and-inexecutable-unde-1f67b0d0061d476f91dd8f41657c56ae.webp)
The respondents’ predecessor filed a suit (O.S.No.470 of 1986) against the petitioners’ predecessors for declaration of title over the 1st schedule property and recovery of possession of the 2nd schedule property.
3 MIN READ→
![Alternative remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC bars supervisory jurisdiction to strike off plaint.. Hiranandani Amalfi Owners Association v. Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited [2026:MHC:832 (C.R.P.No.3776 of 2025)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/alternative-remedy-under-order-vii-rule-11-cpc-bars-supervisory-jurisdiction-to-strike-off-3c7f5ff312ca476b8f82c93412cae60d.webp)
The Respondent (developer) filed a suit (O.S.No.105 of 2024) for permanent injunction to restrain the Petitioner (Owners Association) from obstructing usage of common passages and car parks
2 MIN READ→
![Roster points for reservation apply only from the date a cadre achieves plurality of posts.. A. Suresh v. Union of India & Others [Writ Petition No. 7865 of 2023]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/roster-points-for-reservation-apply-only-from-the-date-a-cadre-achieves-plurality-of-posts-2eb0a074a5be49ecad927a08343f1ab7.webp)
The petitioner, a Station Officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which dismissed his claim for promotion to the post of Additional Divi...
2 MIN READ→
![Roster point reservation applies only from the date a cadre achieves plurality of posts.. A. Suresh v. Union of India & Others [Writ Petition No. 7865 of 2023]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/roster-point-reservation-applies-only-from-the-date-a-cadre-achieves-plurality-of-posts-cc942105438540cb9f862050922d69fc.webp)
The petitioner, a Station Officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category in the Puducherry Fire Services Department, challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) refusal to grant him promotion to the...
2 MIN READ→
![Adoption of DoPT promotion guidelines by Finance Ministry is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively.. M. Devimeena vs Union of India & Ors. [2026:MHC:824]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/adoption-of-dopt-promotion-guidelines-by-finance-ministry-is-prospective-and-cannot-be-app-3d1f281380a44349a96d41410c40fe4e.webp)
The petitioners, serving as Senior Tax Assistants in the Central Excise Department, sought promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise
2 MIN READ→
![En-cadre employees are entitled to PCO allowance to prevent discrimination between en-cadre and ex-cadre staff performing identical duties.. Union of India & Ors. v. C. Sasikumar & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 25137 of 2024]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/en-cadre-employees-are-entitled-to-pco-allowance-to-prevent-discrimination-between-en-cadr-db53856c41c1474a8a95732128379ce6.webp)
The respondents are employees of the S&T Workshop, Podanur, Southern Railway, who were "En-cadre" (permanent) staff in the Production Control Organisation (PCO) wing
2 MIN READ→
![Punishment of compulsory retirement for minor, regularized lapses is disproportionate and violates principles of natural justice.. R.M. Jayakumar v. Union of India & Others [2026:MHC:826]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/punishment-of-compulsory-retirement-for-minor-regularized-lapses-is-disproportionate-and-v-d33184d25b194bfca3351892781f998e.webp)
The petitioner, a Sorting Assistant appointed in 1997, was issued a charge memo in 2013 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
2 MIN READ→
![Foreign Arbitral Award Enforceable Against Non-Signatory Group Company Providing Security for the Disputed Debt.. LSS Ocean Transport DMCC v. K.I. (International) Limited and Goyal Ispat Private Limited [2026:MHC:827; OSA(CAD) No. 15 of 2024]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/foreign-arbitral-award-enforceable-against-non-signatory-group-company-providing-security--f02261a34eb3464e9723ce59bd5c83f5.webp)
The Appellant (disponent owner) and Respondent 1 (R1) entered into a voyage Charterparty for coal transport from South Africa to India.
2 MIN READ→
![Writ petition challenging expired tribunal notifications is infructuous and barred by lack of locus and territorial jurisdiction.. Vaiko v. Union of India & Ors. [2026:MHC:820]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/writ-petition-challenging-expired-tribunal-notifications-is-infructuous-and-barred-by-lack-6788d589b1444d329dd6c4cd52063752.webp)
The Petitioner, General Secretary of the MDMK, challenged an order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the UAPA Tribunal.
2 MIN READ→
The appellants (A1-Madhesh, A2-Kalaivani, and A3-Prema) were convicted by the Trial Court for the double murder of Ramajayam and his son Illayaraja.
3 MIN READ→
The Appellant (PW1/Defacto Complainant) challenged the acquittal of Respondents 2-4 (A1-A3) by the XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.
2 MIN READ→
![### Acquittal maintained as prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, identity of accused, or recovery of weapons.. The State Rep By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, CBCID v. Maran @ Senguttavan & Others [CRL A No. 388 of 2019]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/acquittal-maintained-as-prosecution-failed-to-prove-conspiracy-identity-of-accused-or-reco-35ddf1f957d44c84a72e158f795c83e3.webp)
On July 30, 2000, legendary actor Dr. Rajkumar and three others were allegedly kidnapped from his farmhouse in Thottakajanur by the deceased forest brigand Veerappan and his associates at gunpoint.
2 MIN READ→
![Execution of a decree obtained by suppressing the filing of an appeal constitutes a fraud on the court.. Josephine Parimala & Others v. Arnald Arasu & Another [2026:MHC:814]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/execution-of-a-decree-obtained-by-suppressing-the-filing-of-an-appeal-constitutes-a-fraud--f870af6b54404d33ba82ead589040d8d.webp)
The first respondent (plaintiff) obtained a decree for declaration and recovery of possession against the petitioners (defendants) in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on 28.02.2025.
2 MIN READ→
![Judicial review of disciplinary action is restricted to procedural fairness and not the proportionality of punishment in financial loss cases.. M.K. Ravivarma (deceased) & Anr. v. Union Bank of India & Anr. [2026:MHC:811]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/judicial-review-of-disciplinary-action-is-restricted-to-procedural-fairness-and-not-the-pr-af185f355c96408ca7c7935aa72b77a5.webp)
The Appellant (originally the petitioner, now represented by his legal heir) was a Regional Head at Union Bank of India.
3 MIN READ→
![### Writ Petition Is Not Maintainable Against NCLT Orders Subject to Statutory Appellate Remedies Under Companies Act Summary The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an interim "day order" passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The Court ruled that since Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013, provides a specific statutory appeal mechanism to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate appellate forum.. Dr.E.Shanthi v. M/s.Unittas Multi-Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. & Others [2026:MHC:781 (WP No. 40510 of 2025)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/writ-petition-is-not-maintainable-against-nclt-orders-subject-to-statutory-appellate-remed-87a8a25d286b4b88b1522021ec94b67a.webp)
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a "day order" dated 20.08.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench, Court-II, Chennai.
2 MIN READ→
![Implementation of revised pay scales precludes denial of consequential enhanced gratuity on grounds of financial affordability.. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Madras Fertilizers Ltd. v. V. Venkataraman & Ors. [2026:MHC:782]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/implementation-of-revised-pay-scales-precludes-denial-of-consequential-enhanced-gratuity-o-37cef8a15d4b4594b1d82a8c979edb46.webp)
The Appellants (Madras Fertilizers Ltd.) challenged a Writ Order dated 15.03.2022
2 MIN READ→
![Civil Suit Barred Under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act Against Measures Taken by Secured Creditor.. M/s. City Union Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Aptus Drums and Containers [2026:MHC:784 (C.R.P. No. 771 of 2021)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/civil-suit-barred-under-section-34-of-sarfaesi-act-against-measures-taken-by-secured-credi-4d8f662bef4a4dc2ac05b000a15b49d9.webp)
The Respondent (Plaintiff) availed of two loans (OLCC and OSL term loans) from the Petitioner (Defendant Bank) in 2012 by mortgaging the suit property.
3 MIN READ→
![### Medical Certification Source Irrelevant if Sufficient Cause and Absence of Mala Fides are Established under Section 5. K. Palanisamy (Died) & Others v. Smt. Palaniammal [2026:MHC:790 (C.R.P. No. 3826 of 2022)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/medical-certification-source-irrelevant-if-sufficient-cause-and-absence-of-mala-fides-are--a35eb37637cc4e44b6059e27c854d0d8.webp)
The Plaintiff (Revision Petitioner) filed O.S. No. 192 of 2013 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and permanent/mandatory injunctions
2 MIN READ→
![Plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 when limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.. T.K. Venkateswaran v. The Tamilnadu Circle, Postal Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others [2026:MHC:789 (C.R.P. No. 3793 of 2022)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/plaint-cannot-be-rejected-under-order-vii-rule-11-when-limitation-is-a-mixed-question-of-l-edf763427e5c4401b3c7eb605586da85.webp)
The plaintiff-bank filed O.S. No. 1295 of 2020 for recovery of Rs. 5,31,486/- against the 2nd defendant (borrower) and 3rd defendant (guarantor).
2 MIN READ→
![Article 227 cannot be invoked to strike off a plaint when separate causes of action exist.. Ms. Vembuli and Anr. v. Mr. Arumugam [2026:MHC:788 (C.R.P. No. 3743 of 2023)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/article-227-cannot-be-invoked-to-strike-off-a-plaint-when-separate-causes-of-action-exist-c26514d76f684dab83045fcfd64608d9.webp)
The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit (O.S. No. 25 of 2023) against the Defendants (Petitioners) seeking a permanent injunction regarding property in Survey No. 60/7, claiming title via a 2002 Sale Deed.
3 MIN READ→
![Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory remedy of rejecting a plaint.. P. Thulasipillai v. Manivannan and Another [2026:MHC:787]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/supervisory-jurisdiction-under-article-227-cannot-be-invoked-to-circumvent-the-statutory-r-291c702da8234dafaa1c744ec04130ca.webp)
The Respondents (Plaintiffs) filed a suit (O.S. No. 35 of 2022) seeking a permanent injunction and a declaration that a Cancellation Deed dated October 04, 2017, is null and void.
2 MIN READ→
![Withdrawal with liberty to sue afresh requires proof of formal defects, not mere procedural convenience.. Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. Mrs. Jagaratchagi and Others [2026:MHC:793; C.R.P. No. 3527 of 2023]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/withdrawal-with-liberty-to-sue-afresh-requires-proof-of-formal-defects-not-mere-procedural-dcb168c310194d478832e99c30a7f874.webp)
The 1st Respondent (Plaintiff) filed a suit in 2008 (O.S. No. 169 of 2008) for partition and to set aside sale deeds dated 2006, claiming the suit properties were government-assigned joint family properties.
3 MIN READ→
![Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to note physical features in a partition suit involving title disputes.. N. Nithyanandan v. R. Narayanaswamy and Others [2026:MHC:786]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/advocate-commissioner-cannot-be-appointed-to-note-physical-features-in-a-partition-suit-in-2ab8664a6bbd4620a7ad123355064092.webp)
The Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed a suit for partition and separate possession against his father (1st Respondent) and brother (2nd Respondent), claiming a 1/3rd share in properties he alleged were ancestral and joint...
2 MIN READ→
![Suit against a dead person is not a nullity if the right to sue survives and legal heirs are impleaded.. Dr. G. Rajendra Prasad v. P.S. Narasimhan & Ors. [2026:MHC:792]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/suit-against-a-dead-person-is-not-a-nullity-if-the-right-to-sue-survives-and-legal-heirs-a-b45da88f1a7f499593db393ecc72bbcf.webp)
The Plaintiff (Respondent 1) filed a suit in March 2020 for declaration of title and mandatory injunction against one Vijayalakshmi regarding an encroachment on "B" schedule property
3 MIN READ→
![Admissibility of unregistered partition deed depends on whether it records past transactions or creates rights inpraesenti.. Vetrivel and Another v. Narayanasamy (Died) and Others [2026:MHC:783]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/admissibility-of-unregistered-partition-deed-depends-on-whether-it-records-past-transactio-cfbca850a8a44ea5967ee04c6de7c087.webp)
The plaintiffs (Petitioners) filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mesne profits regarding twelve items of property.
3 MIN READ→
![Plaint cannot be struck off under Article 227 if factual disputes require adjudication via Trial Court procedures.. J. Gopalakrishnan & Others v. P. Navaneethakrishna Raj & Others [2026:MHC:785 (C.R.P. No. 1608 of 2022)]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/plaint-cannot-be-struck-off-under-article-227-if-factual-disputes-require-adjudication-via-cafd409e00dc4466a03395f9703fe6eb.webp)
The petitioners (Defendants 1-7) sought to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 394 of 2022 pending before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
2 MIN READ→
![Absence of relevance and lack of due diligence justify dismissal of late-stage applications to receive documents.. Vadivel and Another v. Kanagaraj and Others [2026:MHC:791]. Madras High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/absence-of-relevance-and-lack-of-due-diligence-justify-dismissal-of-late-stage-application-be6c336273bd4fe3bc21217d1189b556.webp)
The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1998 for partition and separate possession, claiming the suit properties were ancestral.
2 MIN READ→